|
What you write makes some sense. . .
a.) the ruling is specific to the play specified in the case book
b.) my question would be a different play
c.) players certainly recognize their coaches voice
. . . but there are a number of variables that make this ruling retarded, especially from a JO perspective.
a.) players are instructed to react, not to think and analyze and turn to the coach and ask "Gee, was that you coach? I wasn't 100% sure."
b.) in the heat of the moment, confusion is much easier to create.
c.) I can think of numerous cases where the coach is the dad and the runner is the daughter and the runner would get confused if it came from another coach
d.) new coach
e.) new player
f.) player doesn't normally make it to 3B
g.) early in the season
It is a deliberate attempt at confusing and hindering a runner.
Often it is quite effective, although considered quite bush.
However, this ruling validates bush, rather than attempting to raise the bar for professionalism by the adult participants.
By putting the responsibility on youth players, ASA has given free license to unethical adults to mis-behave without penalty which many would consider condoning bush league antics.
Just my 2 cents.
__________________
Tony
|